Reading T. S. Eliot’s Critical Thought: Tradition, Individual Talent, and the Theory of Depersonalization
This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading: Click here.
.png)
Here is the Mind Map of this blog: Click here
Que.1 | How would you like to explain Eliot's concept of 'Tradition'? Do you agree with it? What do you understand by 'Historical Sense'? (Use these quotes to explain your understanding.)
"The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence."
This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional.
Ans.
T. S. Eliot’s essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” (1922) stands as one of the most influential critical texts of the twentieth century. In this essay, Eliot radically redefines the meaning of tradition, challenging the Romantic emphasis on originality, individuality, and personal emotion. Instead of viewing tradition as a static inheritance from the past, Eliot conceptualizes it as a dynamic, living continuum in which past and present exist in a state of mutual interdependence. Central to this idea is what Eliot famously calls the “historical sense.”
Eliot’s Concept of Tradition
In common usage, tradition is often understood as blind adherence to customs, conventions, or the authority of the past. Eliot firmly rejects this notion. For him, tradition is not something that can be passively inherited or mechanically imitated. Instead, it is something that must be actively acquired through rigorous intellectual and artistic effort.
Eliot argues that modern criticism tends to praise a writer for those aspects of his work that are most original or most different from earlier writers. He considers this approach misleading because it isolates the writer from the broader literary continuum. According to Eliot, no poet and no work of art exists in isolation. Every new work enters into a complex relationship with the entire tradition of literature that precedes it.
This idea is encapsulated in Eliot’s assertion:
“No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone.”
Thus, tradition for Eliot is relational rather than chronological. A poem gains meaning not merely from its originality but from its dialogue with earlier works. Tradition is therefore not backward-looking conservatism; it is a framework that enables innovation to acquire depth and resonance.
The Concept of ‘Historical Sense’
Eliot’s notion of tradition is inseparable from his idea of historical sense, which he defines in one of the most quoted lines from the essay:
“The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence.”
This statement reveals the core of Eliot’s critical philosophy. The historical sense is not simply knowledge of literary history or familiarity with canonical texts. Rather, it is an awareness that the past continues to live in the present. The works of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, or Milton are not dead artifacts; they actively shape contemporary writing and consciousness.
For Eliot, the past is not something left behind it is continually reinterpreted through the present, just as the present reshapes our understanding of the past. When a genuinely new work of art is created, it does not merely add itself to tradition; it alters the existing order of literature, however slightly. Thus, tradition is not fixed but constantly reorganized.
This dynamic view of history distinguishes Eliot from purely historical critics like Matthew Arnold. Eliot’s approach is not about tracing influence in a linear manner but about understanding literature as an organic whole, where all periods coexist in a single artistic order
The Timeless and the Temporal
Eliot further clarifies the historical sense in the following statement:
“This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional.”
This sentence is crucial for understanding Eliot’s modernist aesthetics. Here, Eliot introduces a paradox: true tradition requires a simultaneous awareness of time-bound historical moments (the temporal) and universal artistic values (the timeless).
A truly traditional writer, therefore, is not one who imitates the past but one who can perceive how eternal human concerns love, suffering, faith, decay, identity recur across different historical contexts. Shakespeare remains relevant not because his language is old, but because his insights into human nature continue to resonate across time. Similarly, a modern poet becomes “traditional” when their work participates in this timeless conversation while remaining firmly rooted in their own historical moment.
This idea aligns closely with Eliot’s modernist belief that literature should express the fragmentation and crisis of the modern world while remaining anchored in a deep awareness of cultural and literary continuity.
Do I Agree with Eliot’s Concept of Tradition?
Broadly speaking, Eliot’s concept of tradition remains profoundly valuable, especially in academic literary studies. His insistence on rigorous engagement with the past guards against superficial originality and encourages disciplined craftsmanship. It also promotes intellectual humility, reminding writers that creativity emerges from dialogue, not isolation.
However, Eliot’s theory is not without limitations. His idea of tradition has often been criticized for privileging a narrow, predominantly Western and canonical literary lineage. Later critics particularly postcolonial, feminist, and cultural theorists have questioned whose “tradition” is being preserved and whose voices are excluded.
Despite these limitations, Eliot’s emphasis on historical consciousness, intertextuality, and artistic discipline continues to shape modern criticism. When expanded to include multiple traditions and cultural histories, Eliot’s framework remains both relevant and adaptable.
Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s concept of tradition redefines literary creativity as a collective and historical process rather than a purely individual act. His idea of the historical sense demands that writers perceive the past as an active presence shaping the present, while also recognizing the interplay between timeless artistic values and temporal realities.
Tradition, for Eliot, is not a burden but a resource one that enables writers to situate their work within a larger cultural and artistic continuum. In this sense, Eliot’s theory remains a cornerstone of modern literary criticism, offering a disciplined yet dynamic vision of how literature evolves across time
Qye.2 | What is the relationship between “tradition” and "individual talent,” according to the poet T. S. Eliot?
Ans.
1. Introduction
T. S. Eliot’s essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” stands as a cornerstone of twentieth-century literary criticism, marking a decisive break from Romantic notions of originality, inspiration, and subjective self-expression. Against the Romantic celebration of the poet as a solitary genius, Eliot reconceptualizes literary creation as a historically conscious, collective, and disciplined activity. For him, poetic originality is not an act of rebellion against the past but a rigorous engagement with it.
Eliot encapsulates this position when he asserts:
“Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour.”
This statement reveals Eliot’s rejection of passive cultural inheritance and his insistence on intellectual effort as the foundation of artistic maturity. The present discussion critically re-examines Eliot’s understanding of tradition, individual talent, and their complex interrelationship, arguing that Eliot proposes a dialectical and organic model of literary evolution in which continuity and change operate simultaneously.
2. Tradition as Literary Continuity
2.1 Tradition and the Historical Sense
For Eliot, tradition is not synonymous with convention, habit, or blind reverence for the past. Instead, it is grounded in what he famously terms the historical sense, which
“involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence.”
This historical sense enables writers to perceive literature as a simultaneous order, where the works of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and modern poets coexist in an interdependent relationship. The past is not inert or museum-like; it actively shapes and interrogates the present.
Dilip Barad clarifies this position by emphasizing that Eliot’s idea of tradition resists inheritance:
“It has nothing to do with the idea of inheritance; rather it requires a great deal of endeavour.”
Tradition must therefore be earned through sustained reading, critical comparison, and intellectual discipline, rather than passively received.
2.2 The Mutual Transformation of Past and Present
A crucial dimension of Eliot’s theory is the reciprocity between past and present. He argues that literary history is not fixed but constantly reconfigured:
“The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past.”
Every genuinely new work subtly rearranges the existing literary order. Eliot elaborates this idea further:
“For order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered.”
This view positions tradition as a living system rather than a closed canon. Jürgen Kramer interprets this relationship as dialectical, suggesting that tradition survives precisely because it invites revision, reinterpretation, and resistance. The continuity of literature depends upon its openness to transformation.
2.3 Against Mechanical Imitation
Although Eliot insists on engaging with the past, he decisively rejects mechanical imitation. A poet’s worth, he argues, can only be evaluated relationally:
“You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead.”
Yet this comparative method does not legitimize imitation. As Kramer explains, tradition must be understood as something other than oneself, requiring critical distance rather than submissive replication. Authentic creativity emerges from struggle, negotiation, and reinterpretation, not from mimicry.
3. Individual Talent and Artistic Discipline
3.1 Individual Talent Within Tradition
Eliot fundamentally challenges the idea that individual talent exists independently of literary history. He asserts:
“No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone.”
A writer’s significance arises from his or her position within the literary continuum. Individual talent, therefore, consists not in isolation but in the ability to reconfigure inherited forms and meanings through disciplined engagement.
This process is neither effortless nor intuitive. Eliot acknowledges the labour involved:
“Some can absorb knowledge; the more tardy must sweat for it.”
Here, artistic achievement is framed as intellectual work rather than spontaneous inspiration.
3.2 Impersonality and Artistic Objectivity
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Eliot’s theory is his doctrine of impersonality. Rejecting Romantic subjectivism, he argues:
“The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”
For Eliot, poetry is not a direct expression of personal emotion:
“Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion.”
Dilip Barad explains that Eliot’s emphasis on objectivity does not negate emotion but transforms it through form, structure, and tradition. Emotion becomes aesthetically meaningful only when disciplined by impersonality, allowing poetry to transcend private experience and achieve universal resonance.
3.3 The Catalytic Mind: The Shred of Platinum
Eliot famously illustrates impersonality through a scientific analogy:
“The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum.”
Just as a catalyst facilitates chemical reactions without undergoing change itself, the poet’s mind transforms personal experiences into art without allowing subjective emotion to dominate the poem. The more mature the artist, the clearer the distinction between lived experience and artistic creation.
4. Tradition and Individual Talent: A Dialectical Unity
4.1 Tradition as Creative Discipline
Eliot’s theory overturns the assumption that tradition constrains originality. Instead, tradition functions as a creative discipline that sharpens artistic consciousness. He notes:
“This historical sense… is what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time.”
Kramer observes that the acquisition of tradition involves negation as well as acceptance. Individual talent revitalizes tradition precisely by questioning and reshaping it, ensuring literary continuity through innovation.
4.2 The Canon as a Living Structure
Eliot reconceives the literary canon as dynamic rather than fixed:
“What happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it.”
Each new work alters the relational network of literary history. Barad supports this view by describing Eliot’s tradition as a construct continually reimagined by writers who form their own literary pantheons. The canon thus remains open, fluid, and historically responsive.
5. Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s “Tradition and the Individual Talent” offers a transformative vision of literary creativity grounded in historical consciousness, discipline, and objectivity. Tradition provides continuity, structure, and collective memory, while individual talent introduces critique, renewal, and reconfiguration. Their relationship is not antagonistic but dialectical.
Eliot compels both writers and critics to reconceptualize originality as a historically informed achievement rather than a rejection of the past. As Jürgen Kramer aptly concludes:
“In tradition, we experience ourselves as something else.”
Through this dynamic interplay, literature continues to evolve as a living and self-renewing tradition—one in which past and present remain inseparably intertwined.
Que.3 | Explain: "Some can absorb knowledge; the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum".
Ans.
Explaining Eliot’s View on Knowledge, Effort, and Creative Assimilation
T. S. Eliot’s remark—
“Some can absorb knowledge; the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum.”
appears in “Tradition and the Individual Talent” and succinctly captures Eliot’s belief that tradition must be actively acquired, not passively accumulated. The statement clarifies Eliot’s insistence that literary greatness depends not on the quantity of knowledge, but on its quality of assimilation.
Absorption versus Accumulation of Knowledge
Eliot draws a sharp distinction between absorbing knowledge and merely collecting information. To absorb knowledge is to internalize it so completely that it becomes part of the writer’s creative consciousness. Such knowledge is “present” rather than archival alive within the mind of the artist.
By contrast, Eliot implicitly critiques scholarly accumulation devoid of imaginative engagement. The reference to the British Museum symbolizes an excess of information that remains externally stored rather than internally transformed.
As Eliot elsewhere insists,
“Tradition… cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour.”
Thus, absorption involves interpretation, selection, and creative transformation, not passive learning.
“The More Tardy Must Sweat”: Knowledge as Intellectual Labour
The phrase “must sweat for it” foregrounds Eliot’s rejection of Romantic notions of effortless genius. For most writers, tradition is acquired through rigorous effort, demanding patience, discipline, and sustained engagement with texts.
Eliot’s emphasis on labour aligns with his view that poetic development requires what he calls—
“a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”
Here, “sweat” signifies not physical toil but intellectual humility, the willingness to subordinate personal ego to historical awareness.
Shakespeare and Plutarch: The Idea of “Essential History”
Eliot’s invocation of Shakespeare offers a powerful illustration of depth over breadth. Shakespeare’s engagement with Plutarch’s Lives demonstrates how limited sources, when deeply absorbed, can yield profound historical and psychological insight.
By “essential history,” Eliot does not mean factual completeness but an understanding of—
- Human character
- Moral conflict
- Political power
- Historical causality
Shakespeare transformed Plutarch’s narratives into enduring tragedies, showing that creative assimilation matters more than encyclopedic knowledge.
As Eliot famously notes elsewhere,
“No poet… has his complete meaning alone.”
Shakespeare’s greatness emerges from his ability to place himself within tradition and reshape it imaginatively.
Critique of Pedantic Scholarship
The contrast between Shakespeare and “the whole British Museum” functions as a critique of pedantic learning. Eliot suggests that vast resources and institutional access do not guarantee artistic or intellectual insight.
This aligns with his broader skepticism toward academic excess without creativity. Knowledge that is not absorbed remains inert informative but not transformative.
As Jürgen Kramer later observes,
“The acquiring of tradition means to take issue with it—this act implies change.”
Thus, tradition must be worked through, not merely worked over.
Relation to Eliot’s Theory of Tradition and Impersonality
This quotation reinforces Eliot’s larger theoretical framework, particularly his idea of impersonality. The poet’s mind acts as a catalyst, transforming raw material into art:
“The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum.”
Just as the catalyst remains unchanged, absorbed knowledge is transformed into artistic form without overt personal intrusion.
Conclusion
Eliot’s statement ultimately affirms that true learning is transformative rather than accumulative. Whether knowledge is absorbed instinctively or acquired through arduous effort, it must become part of the poet’s imaginative framework. Shakespeare’s engagement with Plutarch exemplifies this principle, demonstrating that selective depth outweighs exhaustive breadth.
In an age saturated with information, Eliot’s insight remains strikingly relevant:
Great literature is born not from how much one knows, but from how deeply one understands.
Que. 4| Explain: "Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry."
Ans.
Explaining Eliot’s Idea of Objective Criticism
T. S. Eliot’s assertion—
“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”
forms a central principle of “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” Through this statement, Eliot decisively shifts the focus of literary criticism from the personality of the author to the autonomous artistic object, that is, the poem itself.
Rejection of Biographical and Personal Criticism
Eliot’s remark constitutes a direct challenge to biographical criticism, which seeks to interpret literature primarily through the author’s life, emotions, or intentions. For Eliot, such approaches obscure the true nature of poetry by reducing it to personal confession.
As he elsewhere insists,
“Poetry is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality.”
Accordingly, criticism must not concern itself with the poet’s psychology, moral character, or emotional state, but with the structure, language, imagery, and form of the poem.
The Poem as an Autonomous Artistic Object
By emphasizing that criticism should be directed “upon the poetry,” Eliot asserts the autonomy of the literary text. A poem exists independently of its creator once it is written. Its meaning arises from internal relationships between words, images, rhythms, symbols, and traditions not from external biographical facts.
This approach anticipates the principles of New Criticism, particularly the idea that the text should be treated as a self-contained verbal object.
“Honest Criticism” and “Sensitive Appreciation”
Eliot’s use of the terms “honest” and “sensitive” is deliberate.
Honest criticism demands intellectual rigor, precision, and freedom from sentimentality or personal bias.
Sensitive appreciation requires attentiveness to nuance, complexity, and aesthetic form.
Together, they imply a balanced critical practice—one that combines analytical discipline with aesthetic responsiveness.
Impersonality and Critical Objectivity
This statement aligns closely with Eliot’s doctrine of impersonality. Just as the poet must suppress personal emotion to achieve artistic objectivity, the critic must resist projecting personal admiration or moral judgment onto the poet.
Eliot argues:
“The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”
Similarly, the critic must practice a form of self-effacement, allowing the poem not the poet to speak.
Tradition and Evaluation of Poetry
For Eliot, judging a poem also involves situating it within the tradition of literature, not within the life-story of its author. He maintains:
“You cannot value [a poet] alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead.”
Thus, criticism evaluates poetry by examining how it engages with, modifies, or reorders literary tradition, rather than by assessing the poet’s individuality.
Implications for Modern Literary Criticism
Eliot’s principle reshaped modern criticism by encouraging:
- Close reading
- Focus on form, imagery, symbolism, and structure
- Rejection of emotional and biographical reductionism
This idea later influenced critics such as I. A. Richards, Cleanth Brooks, and W. K. Wimsatt, particularly in their resistance to the intentional and affective fallacies.
Conclusion
Eliot’s assertion that “honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry” establishes a foundational rule for objective literary evaluation. By separating the artwork from its creator, Eliot enables criticism to focus on what truly endures the crafted verbal structure of the poem.
In doing so, he elevates poetry from personal expression to impersonal art, and criticism from subjective opinion to disciplined inquiry. The statement remains a cornerstone of modern literary theory, reminding readers that literature survives not because of who wrote it, but because of how it is written.
Que. 5| How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of depersonalization? You can explain this with the help of a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst agent, platinum.
Ans.
1. Introduction
T. S. Eliot’s formulation of the theory of depersonalization, articulated most powerfully in “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” constitutes a major intervention in modern literary criticism. Writing against the Romantic valorisation of self-expression, emotional spontaneity, and autobiographical authenticity, Eliot redefines poetry as an impersonal, disciplined, and transformative art. For him, poetic excellence does not arise from the direct expression of the poet’s feelings but from the objective reshaping of experience into artistic form.
Eliot’s position is memorably encapsulated in his oft-quoted declaration:
“Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality.”
This statement announces a decisive break from Romantic aesthetics and signals a modernist commitment to form, structure, and objectivity. By employing a scientific analogy drawn from chemistry, Eliot conceptualizes the poet as a neutral medium who facilitates artistic transformation without imprinting personal identity upon the poem. This essay re-examines Eliot’s theory of depersonalization, its philosophical foundations, the catalytic analogy, and its far-reaching implications for poetic practice and literary criticism.
2. Theoretical Foundations of Depersonalization
2.1 Critique of Romantic Subjectivism
Eliot’s theory emerges as a direct critique of Romantic poetics, particularly the belief that poetry originates in personal emotion and subjective experience. Against this view, Eliot insists upon the impersonality of artistic emotion:
“The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done.”
This surrender entails a deliberate distancing of the poet’s private self from the poetic process. While personal experiences may supply raw material, they must be reshaped, ordered, and refined through artistic discipline before entering the poem.
Dilip Barad reinforces this critical stance by observing:
“Eliot refutes the idea that poetry is the expression of the poet’s personality. Experiences in the life of the man may have no place in his poems, and vice versa.”
Thus, Eliot decisively separates the poet’s life from the poem’s value, asserting that biography has little relevance to literary judgment.
2.2 Artistic Growth and Self-Effacement
For Eliot, artistic maturity involves not self-display but self-effacement. He conceptualizes artistic development as a process of renunciation rather than assertion:
“The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”
This “extinction” should not be misunderstood as emotional emptiness. Instead, it refers to the reorganization of emotion into an impersonal aesthetic structure. True artistic growth occurs when the poet transcends personal limitations and becomes capable of articulating emotions that resonate universally.
3. The Chemical Analogy: Poetry as Artistic Transformation
3.1 The Poet as a Catalytic Medium
To clarify his theory, Eliot introduces a striking analogy from chemistry. He compares the poet’s mind to a filament of platinum that enables a chemical reaction:
“When the two gases previously mentioned are mixed in the presence of a filament of platinum, they form sulphurous acid… the platinum itself is apparently unaffected; has remained inert, neutral, and unchanged.”
Within this analogy:
- The gases symbolize emotions and feelings derived from life.
- The platinum represents the poet’s mind.
- The chemical compound represents the completed poem.
Although the platinum enables the reaction, it leaves no trace in the final product. Similarly, the poet facilitates the artistic transformation of emotion without allowing personal identity to intrude upon the poem.
Barad aptly explains this process:
“He suggests the analogy of a catalyst’s role in a chemical process in a scientific laboratory for this process of depersonalization.”
Through scientific imagery, Eliot emphasizes the objectivity, precision, and discipline inherent in poetic composition.
3.2 Transformation Rather Than Expression
Eliot insists that poetry is not emotional expression but emotional transmutation. He explains:
“The experience… the elements which enter the presence of the transforming catalyst, are of two kinds: emotions and feelings.”
Once processed through the poet’s mind, these elements lose their autobiographical specificity and acquire aesthetic coherence. The emotion presented in poetry is therefore artistic rather than personal, constructed rather than confessional.
4. Impersonality and Artistic Objectivity
4.1 The Nature of Poetic Emotion
Eliot categorically dismisses the idea that the poet’s personal emotions are central to poetry:
“It is not in his personal emotions… that the poet is in any way remarkable or interesting.”
What distinguishes poetry is not emotional intensity but artistic organization:
“The emotion in his poetry will be a very complex thing, but not with the complexity of the emotions of people who have very complex or unusual emotions in life.”
Eliot further clarifies the poet’s task:
“The business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones… to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all.”
Through impersonality, poetry transcends private experience and attains universality.
4.2 The Split Between Experience and Creation
Central to depersonalization is the separation between lived suffering and creative intelligence. Eliot asserts:
“The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates.”
This separation allows the poet’s mind to function objectively, unclouded by personal emotion. Barad supports this view, noting that Eliot emphasizes objectivity and suggests that some degree of “physical distancing” is essential for successful artistic composition.
5. Consequences for Literary Criticism
5.1 Text-Centered Criticism
Eliot’s theory profoundly reshapes critical practice by redirecting attention from the author to the work itself. He famously states:
“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”
This assertion anticipates later developments in New Criticism, where the poem is treated as an autonomous aesthetic object.
Barad reinforces this view by describing poetry as:
“a new thing resulting from the concentration of a very great number of experiences.”
Critical evaluation must therefore focus on form, structure, imagery, and internal coherence rather than authorial intention or biography.
5.2 Universality Beyond Personal Experience
Depersonalization also enables poets to draw upon emotions beyond their own lived experience. Eliot observes:
“And emotions which he has never experienced will serve his turn as well as those familiar to him.”
This principle allows poetry to transcend personal, cultural, and temporal boundaries, ensuring its enduring relevance and universality.
6. Conclusion
T. S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization represents a defining moment in modern literary aesthetics. By conceptualizing poetry as an impersonal, disciplined, and transformative art, Eliot rejects Romantic subjectivism and affirms objectivity, form, and historical awareness. Through the catalytic analogy of platinum, he demonstrates how the poet’s mind converts raw emotion into universal artistic form while remaining detached from the final product.
This theory not only elevates poetic practice but also provides a robust foundation for modern literary criticism by shifting focus from the poet to the poem. As Eliot emphatically concludes:
“Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality.”
Through this escape, poetry achieves universality, permanence, and profound artistic value.
Que. 6| Explain: "Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality but an escape from personality." Write two points on which one can write a critique of 'T.S. Eliot as a critic.'.
Ans.
“T. S. Eliot is by far the most important critic of the twentieth century in the English-speaking world.”
“Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality but an escape from personality.”
“The emotion of art is impersonal.”
“The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”
“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.”
“You cannot value a poet alone; you must set him among the dead.”
No comments:
Post a Comment